PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS Counterpunch
Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009
Economists will scoff at the question in the title. But
that’s because they are trying to fit the present into
the past.
In the past recoveries were routine, because recessions were
temporary restraints resulting from the Federal Reserve putting
the brakes on an overheating economy. By restraining the supply
of money and credit, the Fed caused inventory buildup, layoffs,
and a halt to price rises and union wage demands. With the
economy cooled by unemployment, the Fed would take off the
brakes. Interest rates would decline, money would flow, consumer
demand would rise and workers would be called back to the
factories.
In those days when workers borrowed to spend, they were borrowing
against rising real wages from rising productivity. In economic
downturns, few workers actually lost their jobs. They were
laid off from their jobs for temporary periods. Workers seldom
lost their homes or cars, thanks to union funds and unemployment
benefits.
Today the situation is different. In the 21st century real
wages have not risen. Workers have spent more by accepting
deteriorating household balance sheets. They have maxed out
their credit cards and spent the equity in their homes. Imitators
of the US government, American consumers borrow to pay their
bills.
(Article continues below)
The expansion of household debt relative to income created
the illusion that the economy was sound. But the consumer
economy was as much of a credit-based bubble as the real estate
bubble and the financial sector bubble. The economy has lost
its real basis.
Today it is difficult to stimulate consumer demand by lowering
interest rates. Consumers are too heavily in debt to borrow
any more. Financial institutions are too impaired to want
to lend to anyone except those who don’t need to borrow.
As the Keynesian macroeconomists used to say, “you can
lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.”
And there’s another problem. Much of what American
consumers purchase today is made offshore. Stimulating consumer
demand in America puts factories back to work, but those factories
are located elsewhere in the world.
How does an economy consume more than it produces? Previously,
this question applied only to poor third world countries.
These countries would consume by the grace of World Bank loans.
From time to time they would pay for their consumption by
being put through an IMF restructuring program that would
curtail their consumption to make them repay their loans by
forced saving.
The United States has so far avoided such humiliation, because
its currency is the world money. The US has been able to borrow
endlessly, because it can pay its debts in its own currency.
This ability might be coming to an end. The US has been using
up the bulk of the world’s supply of saving for years
in order to finance its consumption. Considering the outlook
for the US economy and dollar, the productive nations of the
world and those with oil have more dollars and dollar-denominated
assets than they want. The US, with its collapsing economy,
its bailouts of financial institutions, and its wars, is facing
the largest government budget deficit in its history, both
in absolute amount and as a percentage of national income.
The easy monetary policy, which the Fed hopes will arrest
deflation, threatens inflation and further deterioration in
the dollar. Foreigners simply do not want to lend more large
sums to a country that, from all appearances, has no way to
close its trade and budget deficits. They certainly do not
want to lend when the interest rate offered is close to zero
and the reserve currency status of the dollar is in doubt.
Economists and the policy-makers they advise are thinking
in the past, a time when low interest rates stimulated consumer
and investment demand, thus lifting the economy. Today the
low interest rates threaten the dollar, discourage foreigners
from lending more to the US, and deprive Americans of interest
income necessary to their ability to pay their bills.
In the second half of the 20th century, American economic
supremacy was a gift of World War II, which destroyed the
productive capacity of the rest of the developed world. American
economic supremacy also owes much to communism in Russia and
China and to socialism in India, which rendered these large
countries economically impotent. The United States did not
have to compete for its economic hegemony. It simply inherited
it from the choices made by the rest of the world.
The situation is different today. Unlike the US, other countries
are free of the hubris of being the “indispensable nation.”
They know how hard it is to be successful and do not treat
success as their birthright. They do not give away their economy
for nebulous foreign policy goals or for short-term profits.
They look ahead 20, 30 years while America’s CEOs look
to the next quarter’s profits.
The United States is walking on quicksand. It is dependent
on foreigners for the funding to conduct the day-to-day operations
of its government. Its economy is a hollow shell reduced to
dependence on a financial sector that is discredited worldwide.
America’s government believes that its foreign wars
of aggression are more important than any domestic needs,
including the health care of its population.
Now that its supply route to feed its war of aggression in
Afghanistan is threatened, the American government has the
delusion that it will be able to supply its army in Afghanistan
through thousands of miles of Eastern Europe, Russia, and
Central Asia. Only a government totally oblivious to reality
would imagine that Russia’s Putin, whose nose is rubbed
in excrement every day by the US government, will permit America
to transit Russian territory to resupply US imperial legions
in Afghanistan.
What we are witnessing is a once great power engaging in
fantasy to disguise from itself that it is a failed state.